• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Son Heung-Min

glasgowspur said:
Thought he did well tonight, especially with the corner, not just winning it, but the slowing down the taking of it and whipping it in like that.
Kulu tried it earlier from the other side, wonder if it was preplanned because that keeper is weak.
Click to expand...

Agree, i thought it was his best game for a while.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Yep
We said when we saw the Xg it shows the gifts we gave vs the excellence in 3 of the goals plus the sheer calamity they had in goal for the 4th
But son has taken some great corners lately
Click to expand...

It looks like something they'd been working on in training, as Kulu tried a similar corner earlier on if remember? And the jump next to the keeper is clearly a smart tactic. Nice to see us evolve from being the ones on the receiving end, to now protecting our keeper with a screener, and applying pressure ourselves at the other end.

We are a well-coached club now. Ange doesn't change things instantly (as he could have in game when the harassment of our keeper started). It takes a while, but we get there.
 
SpurMeUp said:
It looks like something they'd been working on in training, as Kulu tried a similar corner earlier on if remember? And the jump next to the keeper is clearly a smart tactic. Nice to see us evolve from being the ones on the receiving end, to now protecting our keeper with a screener, and applying pressure ourselves at the other end.

We are a well-coached club now. Ange doesn't change things instantly (as he could have in game when the harassment of our keeper started). It takes a while, but we get there.
Click to expand...

What I liked about it was that we stuck to the game plan, Forsters head had gone, but son, kulu and Bergvall kept theirs and played to the book.
In days of yore we would have hit the first man, been hit on the break from the rebound and collapsed.
 
braineclipse said:
That's how probabilities and rounding numbers works?
Click to expand...

I understand math, scoring from a corner is unlikely but not fudging zero, and if your model puts it at zero, the model is wrong (including rounding)

Bedfordspurs said:
Yep
We said when we saw the Xg it shows the gifts we gave vs the excellence in 3 of the goals plus the sheer calamity they had in goal for the 4th
But son has taken some great corners lately
Click to expand...

The xG on that game shows how bad that model can be

Amad's goal is a 0.8 xG, a fudging keeper press that deflects into the goal?
But an inswinging corner is 0
And Solanke's breakaway goal is 0.15?

None of that makes sense to me ..
 
SpurMeUp said:
It looks like something they'd been working on in training, as Kulu tried a similar corner earlier on if remember? And the jump next to the keeper is clearly a smart tactic. Nice to see us evolve from being the ones on the receiving end, to now protecting our keeper with a screener, and applying pressure ourselves at the other end.

We are a well-coached club now. Ange doesn't change things instantly (as he could have in game when the harassment of our keeper started). It takes a while, but we get there.
Click to expand...
He did it early in the second half
They clearly new then keeper was a vampire
 
Raziel said:
I understand math, scoring from a corner is unlikely but not fudging zero, and if your model puts it at zero, the model is wrong (including rounding)



The xG on that game shows how bad that model can be

Amad's goal is a 0.8 xG, a fudging keeper press that deflects into the goal?
But an inswinging corner is 0
And Solanke's breakaway goal is 0.15?

None of that makes sense to me ..
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me
You don’t miss Amads chance but you score direct form a comer a 1 in a 1000 times
 
Raziel said:
I understand math, scoring from a corner is unlikely but not fudging zero, and if your model puts it at zero, the model is wrong (including rounding)



The xG on that game shows how bad that model can be

Amad's goal is a 0.8 xG, a fudging keeper press that deflects into the goal?
But an inswinging corner is 0
And Solanke's breakaway goal is 0.15?

None of that makes sense to me ..
Click to expand...

Think of it as an out of 10 chance.

You hit 10 corners, your expected to score 0 direct from it.

Amad scores 8 out of 10 of those chances.

Solanke did have some work to do, so scores less than twice if he had that chance 10 times
 
Chrissivad said:
Think of it as an out of 10 chance.

You hit 10 corners, your expected to score 0 direct from it.

Amad scores 8 out of 10 of those chances.

Solanke did have some work to do, so scores less than twice if he had that chance 10 times
Click to expand...

Understood and potentially I could understand the corner piece (but the 2nd choice breaks that logic), does anyone think pressing a keeper creates a 8/10 chance for a goal, fudge I guarantee you if you put the two of them on the training ground and FF let Amad do the same slide 100 times, not even 50% of those would deflect the same way into net ..

my point, if Amad's chance is 0.8, no way a corner is 0.0
 
Raziel said:
I understand math, scoring from a corner is unlikely but not fudging zero, and if your model puts it at zero, the model is wrong (including rounding)



The xG on that game shows how bad that model can be

Amad's goal is a 0.8 xG, a fudging keeper press that deflects into the goal?
But an inswinging corner is 0
And Solanke's breakaway goal is 0.15?

None of that makes sense to me ..
Click to expand...

It's not meant to, it's there for all the experts to prattle on about. Fans should not get confused by what you see at a game and wait for the pundits to tell them what happened and more importantly what should have happened.
 
Raziel said:
Understood and potentially I could understand the corner piece (but the 2nd choice breaks that logic), does anyone think pressing a keeper creates a 8/10 chance for a goal, fudge I guarantee you if you put the two of them on the training ground and FF let Amad do the same slide 100 times, not even 50% of those would deflect the same way into net ..

my point, if Amad's chance is 0.8, no way a corner is 0.0
Click to expand...

I could be wrong on this, but ignore the pressing, that doesn't really matter.

While the pressing leads to the goal, it's his when he gets the ball and the chances he scores from there.

So from that close to the goals, Amaad should have a high xG as he is 6 yards out
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Yep
We said when we saw the Xg it shows the gifts we gave vs the excellence in 3 of the goals plus the sheer calamity they had in goal for the 4th
But son has taken some great corners lately
Click to expand...
xG is really a statistical demonstration of the quality of a team or played finishing. You can read a bit more into it than that, but that's essentially what it's really telling you without further context.

So yesterday we didn't have particularly great chances but our finishing was exceptional, Solanke's 2nd especially.
 
Bishop said:
xG is really a statistical demonstration of the quality of a team or played finishing. You can read a bit more into it than that, but that's essentially what it's really telling you without further context.

So yesterday we didn't have particularly great chances but our finishing was exceptional, Solanke's 2nd especially.
Click to expand...

It's also a useful tool to show how well your defensive unit functioned.

2+, not well at all.
 
SpurMeUp said:
When your keeper gives up the ball a meter out from the goal line, you don’t need XG to understand where the ‘defensive unit’ malfunctioned. Surely you could see that and his other gaff? Was quite blatant!
Click to expand...

It's the taking of risks like that that annoys me in the first place.
 
Bishop said:
xG is really a statistical demonstration of the quality of a team or played finishing. You can read a bit more into it than that, but that's essentially what it's really telling you without further context.

So yesterday we didn't have particularly great chances but our finishing was exceptional, Solanke's 2nd especially.
Click to expand...
Yep
Sonny’s goal was a freak
Solankes goal was a quality finish
 
Raziel said:
Understood and potentially I could understand the corner piece (but the 2nd choice breaks that logic), does anyone think pressing a keeper creates a 8/10 chance for a goal, fudge I guarantee you if you put the two of them on the training ground and FF let Amad do the same slide 100 times, not even 50% of those would deflect the same way into net ..

my point, if Amad's chance is 0.8, no way a corner is 0.0
Click to expand...

A corner must be less than 0.001 %. If the model doesn't go lower than 0.01 %, the former becomes 0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back